DC Studios Superman - July 11, 2025

[Tking22]

Mr. Terrific has been appearing in DC animated films and series for years now, and his first live action appearance was multiple seasons of Arrow on CW. Not the biggest or most well known member of the modern JL, but he's definitely a full time member, Gunn was going for lesser knowns, which is why we also got third-string Lantern Guy. 

[Big s]

51 minutes ago, Tking22 said:

Mr. Terrific has been appearing in DC animated films and series for years now, and his first live action appearance was multiple seasons of Arrow on CW. Not the biggest or most well known member of the modern JL, but he's definitely a full time member, Gunn was going for lesser knowns, which is why we also got third-string Lantern Guy. 

I honestly stopped watching Arrow after only a couple episodes. It looked terrible and really wasn’t that good of a story. I kinda feel like weak hero types need more than just a basic show and Arrow type characters in particular need a bit more for me personally. Hawkeye kinda works in the Avengers stuff mainly because he wasn’t a main character in the movies and they developed him through the movies to make a passable show, although barely passable. Never been a fan of Arrow based heroes or water based heroes or shrinking/ growing heroes.

[Thom]

Alright, just got back from seeing it, and I am feeling really nostalgic for Superman Returns and Man of Steel... 

For me, this leaned too far into the comic and comedic arenas, starting with the scene with Krypto jumping all over a wounded Supes. That set the tone for the rest and, IMO, just missed everything important about the mythos of the character and the world he lives in. That's not to say that there were not some nice moments, but they were swamped by too many gags that took precedent over drama.
And...

Spoiler

...what was the idea of doing Jor-el and Lara so dang dirty!? Rule mercilessly and get many wives..? WTF? That had me rolling my eyes, first because I thought it was way too corny and generic for Luthor to make up - and then even harder (so much one almost rolled out of my head) when you realize they actually meant that! Double WTF?! That's not why Kal-el was sent to Earth. Their history is no much more honorable and hopeful than that, only to have Gunn crap all over it. So much for the House of El's sigil standing for hope.

As for Ma and Pa Kent, bring back Costner and Lane! Please!

Then we get to Supergirl... By half way through, all I am watching this for is for some sign that Supergirl will be a shining light, but no... For the ten second she is on we get a drunk party-girl stumbling in from staying out until dawn's early light... Now I am in no way hopeful for the up-coming Superirl movie.

For the first movie in Gunn's rebooted DCEU this was not a good start, IMO. So far, the lackluster MCU is still beating the DCEU over the head.

My score - 3.5/10. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:54 PM by Thom

[kajnrig]

1 hour ago, Thom said:

  Hide contents

So much for the House of El's sigil standing for hope.

 

 

According to Wikipedia, that only started being prescribed to the logo in 2004. Before that, notable definitions included

- "S" for "Superman" (origin)

- an El family crest/coat of arms (from Superman: The Movie)

- a design by Pa Kent based off Native American iconography, depicting a snake to symbolize healing (The Man of Steel, 80s)

This desire for it to mean something super deep, and "hope" of all things, I find to be really weird and unnecessary. But that's coming from me as a casual Superman audience.

 

Anyway, I think it's about as good and bad as any of the other James Gunn superhero movies. Choosing Israel-Palestine as a backdrop wasn't a great decision. The use of Krypto and an associated spoiler was a good one. The movie was at its best when it didn't take itself super seriously. I think it could have handled the "serious" subject matter more adeptly by leaning even more heavily into its super simplistic, cartoony storytelling. As is, its attempts feel half-assed.

Altogether, it holds together better than the Snyderverse movies, but otherwise is surpassed by other superhero movies before it. It's a cut above/below Superman Returns, but generally in that same ballpark.

[Duke Togo]

Saw it this afternoon. It was fine. Second half was better than the first half. Kinda goofy in that James Gunn sorta way. Definitely better than that dark and gritty nonsense Zack Snyder did. Not as good as the original Superman movie.

[jvmacross]

2 hours ago, Duke Togo said:

Saw it this afternoon. It was fine. Second half was better than the first half. Kinda goofy in that James Gunn sorta way. Definitely better than that dark and gritty nonsense Zack Snyder did. Not as good as the original Superman movie.

Agreed...however, I'll take it a step further and toss in the boring AF "The Batman"-verse too...

 

[M'Kyuun]

Just saw it and I liked it. However, it's not without its flaws. But I liked Corenswet as Supes, Brosnahan as Lois, Fillion as Gardner, and Gathegi as Mr. Terrific, probably the most breakout performance in the film. I'd say Nicholas Hoult's Lex Luthor was a wee bit over the top, but then again, given current events, it's more like art imitating reality. Anyway, Hoult's a good actor and I think he portrayed the character well. I still think Clancy Brown's cool and collected version in Superman: The Animated Series was the ideal capture of the character. I couldn't stand Eisenberg's take, so Hoult's was at least better than that. I just want a live action Luthor that's portrayed the same way- cool, unflappable, brilliant, aloof but charming when it suits his needs. I think Luthor also works better as a smart villain when his interest in Superman comes from a place of scientific curiosity and gamesmanship- pitting his intellect against Superman's. He sorta did that in this movie, but his methods were far more axe than scalpel and I'd prefer the latter approach, always ready with a plan B, C, and D, and nonchalant when his initial plans fail, b/c even failures have their lessons to be learned and Lex always has myriad contingency plans.

Anyway, it was mostly cartoonish with a handful of serious or tender moments, but overall, not bad. I loved seeing the old Hall of Justice and the "Justice Gang" (working title 😉) added a bit of flavor to the film as a build up to a larger DC Universe. I'm not familiar with Guy Gardner but if he's a bit of a narcissistic ass, well then Fillion nailed it. Hawkgirl was, well, Hawkgirlish, although again, I harken back to the excellent Justice League toon in the 90s as my ideal, and this movie's characterization was not that. Moving on to Mr. Terrific, a character I had no familiarity with and yet I felt made the biggest impact. Hoping he'll be getting more screen time in the future. I imagine there's probably a Justice League film in the works. As the owner of a nearly 90 lb pitsky who's just a year and half old and a bit unruly, especially on the leash, Krypto was all too familiar. 😄 I could totally see my dog doing the same to me as in the opening scene.

I can't help but thinking that LEGO missed a great opportunity by not making a Mr. Terrific set with his ship. That thing was cool. AFAIK, they're not making any sets from this movie, which is pretty disappointing as DC gets little representation in brick for characters beyond Batman and this movie had enough set pieces that at least a few sets could have been made from it. 

Spoiler

The large creature battle that featured Superman and all three Justice Gang members would have been a great set. The pocket dimensional prison breakout would have been another good one, as well as a way to include a Metamorpho minifig.

Regarding niggles, the only real niggle I took with the film was the dimensional rift trope and how it was solved. Aside from Mr. terrific uttering his best line, it ranked alongside the original Superman's reversing and returning the Earth's rotation to change the timeline as being yet another terrible time manipulation that really makes no sense. But we're watching a movie where people fly and have crazy mutations so....

I lied, I have a second niggle: the gross mischaracterization of Jor-El and Lara in their message to Kal-El to dominate humans and create a harem of wives. For a guy who professes to love the comics, it seems Gunn took a serious not-so-good creative liberty with that particular part of the story. I never read Superman comics, but my impression from every other movie and cartoon has been that the Els stood for decency, honesty, and goodness, all traits they hoped their son would embody and use on Earth where they knew he'd have incredible abilities relative to the indigenous population. This movie craps on that long legacy, and while I get Gunn's reason for doing it, I don't think it was necessary. It could have just as easily been a lie cooked up by Luthor that accomplished the same effect before being proven wrong.

 

[Big s]

1 hour ago, M'Kyuun said:

I'm not familiar with Guy Gardner but if he's a bit of a narcissistic ass, well then Fillion nailed it.

Yeah, that’s Guy Gardener. I may not be familiar at all with Mr Terrific, but Guy was in a lot of the stuff back when I used to read DC stuff 

[Thom]

12 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

....

  Hide contents

...

I lied, I have a second niggle: the gross mischaracterization of Jor-El and Lara in their message to Kal-El to dominate humans and create a harem of wives. For a guy who professes to love the comics, it seems Gunn took a serious not-so-good creative liberty with that particular part of the story. I never read Superman comics, but my impression from every other movie and cartoon has been that the Els stood for decency, honesty, and goodness, all traits they hoped their son would embody and use on Earth where they knew he'd have incredible abilities relative to the indigenous population. This movie craps on that long legacy, and while I get Gunn's reason for doing it, I don't think it was necessary. It could have just as easily been a lie cooked up by Luthor that accomplished the same effect before being proven wrong.

 

So much this! Yes, Superman is an 87 year old property and it will be subject to change over time, but that was unneeded.

Previous movies... 

Spoiler

...have balanced out the virtues of both sets of his parents, the Els who found a way and sacrificed in order to save him and the Kents who raised him to be the man he was, but doing that was pretty crappy. 

I almost walked out too @pengbuzz, not just for that alone, but I figured I'd paid my ticket anyway and was looking forward to seeing Supergirl... which it turns out, I needn't have waited for anyway...

15 hours ago, kajnrig said:

According to Wikipedia, that only started being prescribed to the logo in 2004. Before that, notable definitions included

- "S" for "Superman" (origin)

- an El family crest/coat of arms (from Superman: The Movie)

- a design by Pa Kent based off Native American iconography, depicting a snake to symbolize healing (The Man of Steel, 80s)

This desire for it to mean something super deep, and "hope" of all things, I find to be really weird and unnecessary. But that's coming from me as a casual Superman audience.

 

Anyway, I think it's about as good and bad as any of the other James Gunn superhero movies. Choosing Israel-Palestine as a backdrop wasn't a great decision. The use of Krypto and an associated spoiler was a good one. The movie was at its best when it didn't take itself super seriously. I think it could have handled the "serious" subject matter more adeptly by leaning even more heavily into its super simplistic, cartoony storytelling. As is, its attempts feel half-assed.

Altogether, it holds together better than the Snyderverse movies, but otherwise is surpassed by other superhero movies before it. It's a cut above/below Superman Returns, but generally in that same ballpark.

Gunn did good with Guardians of the Galaxy. The mix of comedy and gag-shtick worked very well in that series, especially as it was not as well known, but not Superman. For me, they come from two completely, tonally different perspectives. What worked for GotG should have stayed there. Maybe I am 'romanticizing' it too much, but I've always felt Superman had a lot more deeper emotion and gravitas than I think Gunn is capable of addressing.

This is probably the only time I'll watch this movie. Superman the Movie, Returns and Man of Steel were world's away better! In my opinion.

Edited Wednesday at 01:37 PM by Thom

[sh9000]

James Gunn's Superman.

AKA Superfriends of the Galaxy.

AKA The Superfriends Squad.

Use a different formula.

[Duke Togo]

22 hours ago, kajnrig said:

Choosing Israel-Palestine as a backdrop wasn't a great decision.

I don't understand why people are saying this. The only thing the nations in conflict have in common with them is that one is well-armed and the other isn't. Nothing else about that storyline is even remotely similar.

[Duke Togo]

Regarding Superman's Kryptonian parents,

Spoiler

that's right out of the comics, circa John Byrne in the 1980s. As with the movie, Superman chooses to follow the example of his human parents and rejects his Kryptonian parents.

 

[M'Kyuun]

46 minutes ago, Duke Togo said:

Regarding Superman's Kryptonian parents,

  Hide contents

that's right out of the comics, circa John Byrne in the 1980s. As with the movie, Superman chooses to follow the example of his human parents and rejects his Kryptonian parents.

 

Unfortunately, the Jor-El (or Jor -L, as it was originally spelled by Siegel and Shuster) Wiki doesn't go into detail concerning the ethics of the character early on beyond the fact that he was a scientist who tried to raise the alarm concerning his rapidly dying planet, and having his warnings dismissed and falling under suspicion of the Science Council, constructed a ship to save his son. Both of those are positives, but it doesn't really go into detail what Jor-El intends for his son to do once on Earth. However, the fact that Superman keeps a hologram of his father in the Fortress of Solitude for advice, at least, it seems, during the Silver Age of Comics in the 50s, points towards Jor-El's ethics as being highly moral- no subjugation of humanity and creating harems to start a new Krypton here. John Byrne took Superman in a different direction in '86 with his Man of Steel miniseries where he reinvented Kal-El's origin story as well as Jor-El's backstory and personality, which I'm assuming, in part, is where Gunn was drawing inspiration for his interpretation. Having grown up seeing Jor-El always portrayed as a kind and wise father and guide to Kal-El, I'm finding it difficult to cotton towards Gunn's take. If he was going for shock value, I wish he'd chosen a different character and circumstance. For Clark's part, I think it's a uniquely cool benefit to being an extraterrestrial orphan when he can seek guidance from both his dead parents via technology and from his Earth parents to help him navigate the situations he faces in the world as two different people with problems on very different levels. I've always thought that the influences from both sets of parents, or at least from his Kryptonian father, were instrumental in shaping the person that Clark becomes and how that informs who Superman is. I find making Jor-El a tyrant undigestible.

[Duke Togo]

3 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

I find making Jor-El a tyrant undigestible.

Ok, but it has precedence. Gunn didn't come up with it on his own. So, people who are flipping tables over this and walking out of theaters because of it need to check their lore. 

[Big s]

13 minutes ago, Duke Togo said:

Ok, but it has precedence. Gunn didn't come up with it on his own. So, people who are flipping tables over this and walking out of theaters because of it need to check their lore. 

People often lose their💩at the wrong thing with these movies and shows 

[M'Kyuun]

2 hours ago, Duke Togo said:

Ok, but it has precedence. Gunn didn't come up with it on his own. So, people who are flipping tables over this and walking out of theaters because of it need to check their lore. 

Nope, it's part of the tapestry of Superman's long and varying lore.  I don't particularly care for that interpretation, but I concede that it exists and

2 hours ago, Big s said:

People often lose their💩at the wrong thing with these movies and shows 

I didn't lose my 💩in the theater when the full message was revealed. Nor did anyone else who was watching (probably about 6-8 of us for the matinee yesterday). In truth, I'd go see it again, as I enjoyed more of the film than not.  I wish Gunn hadn't used that interpretation, but at least Clark, in this corner of the Superman Universe, has doting parents in the personages of Martha and Jonathan Kent. And being an optimist, Clark can continue to cherish the first part of the message as he has for years while just ignoring the latter half.

And people certainly do overreact to stuff, especially trivial stuff like a movie. It's entertainment- it's not your health, it's not your job, or your house, or a child, a partner, a parent, a friend in need or worse. It's just pictures on a screen telling a story for a couple of hours.  "Nothing to get hung about", to quote the Fab Four. If a disagreeable moment or two in a movie is the worst part of your life, you're living a rather rare and exceptional life. Be thankful for those of you to whom it applies.

[renegadeleader1]

10 hours ago, Duke Togo said:

I don't understand why people are saying this. The only thing the nations in conflict have in common with them is that one is well-armed and the other isn't. Nothing else about that storyline is even remotely similar.

It's because it's the current world event causing controversy. I'm old so Israel Gaza wasn't my first thought, but Slobodan Milošević, Serbia, and the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia with a generic IndPakistania stand in for those two later places.